Windows Vista Pricing Announced and Compared to XP
Tue Sep 5, 2006 1:18PM EDT
See Comments (18)
PC World recently posted in interesting analysis of the sorta-announced-but-not-really pricing for Windows Vista. Specifically, this piece compares Vista prices to those for XP when it was announced in 2001. The numbers aren't really surprising: Vista is expensive, but so was XP.
The big news is that Vista comes in so many flavors and editions that pricing is difficult to compare directly. But the addition of an "Ultimate" edition, at a whopping $400 new, is considerably more than any version of XP has ever been.
I won't waste time regurgitating PC World's work, but I will express disappointment with Microsoft over not just the ridiculous prices, but also the nickel-and-diming us over additional features like fax support and Remote Desktop, a very useful tool that I've written about in the past. Even if you want to add something as simple as search to your OS, it'll cost an extra $40 over the $200 "Home Basic" edition, a version which is so stripped down I can't imagine anyone will actually pay for it, unless it comes preloaded on a new computer.
How much is appropriate to pay for an OS? Compared to the XP of old, most versions of Vista don't actually look that expensive. But the PC world is a different place now than it was five years ago. Free alternatives to Windows abound, and even MacOS doesn't cost this much. Does Microsoft really think people are going to willingly hand over an extra $100 for the luxury of having hard drive encryption, a standard feature on just about every other commercial OS on the planet? And don't get me started on the absurd "upgrade" pricing: Upgrading from XP to Vista Ultimate gets you a whopping $40 discount.
Now that the beast has a price tag on it, are you more or less interested in jumping to Vista?
Top 5 Posts
More About Software
Comments on Windows Vista Pricing Announced and Compared to XP
Post a Comment
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
-
2 Posted by t2kburl on Tue Sep 5, 2006 4:20PM EDT Report Abuse
Personally, I think the pricing and the one copy per PC rather than per PC owner policies are absurd and reflect the height of greed. I sincerely hope that more software and games are developed to compliment the alternative OSes. I also do not see how Vista is enough of an improvement to justify the price tag.
-
3 Posted by intelligent_guy007 on Tue Sep 5, 2006 4:39PM EDT Report Abuse
Why would anyone wants VISTA? When there are so many choices out there ranging from like MAC, Linspire or open source software. VISTA is nothing but a poor imitation of MAC and open source software. There are so many negative points about VISTA. Its being delivered so late and offer features which are considered *old* in other operating systems. Expect it to be memory and resource hog and expect it do things "inefficiently" as usual. Most computers will need upgrade to run VISTA and cost of VISTA is comparabable to cost of a desktop itself. Take my advicse and stay way from it. Save yourself Save yourself lot of heart ache, headache and plenty of dollars and live with XP as long as you can and then switch to open source or MAC. On a lighter note, I agree with observation made above. Consumers are going to pay Microsoft's legal bill.
-
4 Posted by m_leinoff on Tue Sep 5, 2006 5:30PM EDT Report Abuse
Microsoft should start billing itself as Apple's marketing department. By cranking out absurd policies like these, you'd think they wanted everyone to run out and buy an iBook. It's like they're trying to make Windows as unpalatable as possible to everyone.
-
5 Posted by taficke on Tue Sep 5, 2006 8:22PM EDT Report Abuse
Finally a lot of people are saying that Microsoft is charging too much for Vista but i don't think so because at the rate its goiing you only have to pay $400 once every half a decade where as Mac come out with a new version every year it seems like which is $130 every year.So to lay it out on the table for every decade, a PC costs$800 to upgrade and a Mac costs $1300 to upgrade every decade. Also after about the first half of a year prices for Microsoft seem to always go down. So really a PC is a better bargain. All that mubo jumbo about haw the PC has more viruses than a Mac well that may be true but people who make viruses know that more people use PC's so they choose to make viruses for the PC's so more people will get them. And don't get me started about the people who say Microsoft should only cost that much if it was a monopoly when people who say that always leave points in what they say that makes Apple sound like a monopoly as well. Hello Mac World=only mac products, Mac Addict=only mac products, PC magazine= Mac and Windows, and finally PC World= Mac and Windows. So it almost seems like Apple is trying to be more of a monopoly than Microsoft. O and one more thing. how everyone says Windows copies everyone else they are absurd. You Mac fans should do a little research, Mac was originally stollen from Linux and changed just enough to not have a copyright violation. People come its the real world you need to read a little.
Post a Comment
Sponsored Links
Videos
Tech Close-Ups
The Logitech Harmony 880 and 890 remotes actually do what they promise: they let you control all you ...
Gadgets You Might Like
Also on Yahoo! Tech
| Computers | Home Office | Wi-Fi & Networking | Phones & PDAs | Cameras & Camcorders | TV & Home Theater | Portable Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 Posted by pehindel on Tue Sep 5, 2006 4:01PM EDT Report Abuse
Hopefully, I can live with XP for a couple more years. Then, I may look seriously at an Apple system. Microsoft still has a monopoly, although I don't want to see them in court again. Eventually, I feel their legal fees get passed onto the consumer. Like a $200 operating system !!!